Language outcomes for children with cochlear implants enrolled in different communication programs

Yanbay, Ennur; Hickson, Louise; Scarinci, Nerina; Constantinescu, Gabriella; Dettman, Shani

doi:10.1179/1754762813y.0000000062

Cited by 55 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…50 No significant differences in receptive vocabulary, auditory comprehension, or expressive language were found across the 3 groups after controlling for confounders such as age of hearing loss management and family involvement in the intervention program. These results are aligned with the overall findings of our review and would not change the conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT: Permanent hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and interferes with typical communication development. Early detection through newborn hearing screening and hearing technology provide most children with the option of spoken language acquisition. However, no consensus exists on optimal interventions for spoken language development. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of early sign and oral language intervention compared with oral language intervention only for children with permanent hearing loss.DATA SOURCES: An a priori protocol was developed. Electronic databases (eg, Medline, Embase, CINAHL) from 1995 to June 2013 and gray literature sources were searched. Studies in English and French were included. STUDY SELECTION:Two reviewers screened potentially relevant articles. DATA EXTRACTION:Outcomes of interest were measures of auditory, vocabulary, language, and speech production skills. All data collection and risk of bias assessments were completed and then verified by a second person. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to judge the strength of evidence. RESULTS:Eleven cohort studies metinclusion criteria, of which 8 included only children with severe to profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. Language development was the most frequently reported outcome. Other reported outcomes included speech and speech perception.LIMITATIONS: Several measures and metrics were reported across studies, and descriptions of interventions were sometimes unclear.CONCLUSIONS: Very limited, and hence insufficient, high-quality evidence exists to determine whethersign language in combination with oral language is more effective than oral language therapy alone. More research is needed to supplement the evidence base. Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; b Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; c Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; d Translational Research in Biomedicine Graduate Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; f Consultant, Moncton, New Brunswick; g Audiology Clinic, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and h Voice for Hearing-Impaired Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dr Fitzpatrick conceptualized the project, fi nalized the protocol, was involved in all stages of the analysis and interpretation, wrote the fi rst draft of this manuscript, and is the study guarantor; Ms Hamel and Ms Pratt were involved in screening articles and extracted data; Ms Hamel conducted the quality assessment; Ms Hamel, Ms Pratt, Ms Stevens, and Dr Moher provided input into the fi nal manuscript; Ms Stevens contributed to the development of the methods, oversaw the screening, Early detection of permanent childhood hearing loss through population-based newborn screening has become standard care in much of the world. Expectations are that early intervention through hearing technolog...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies focus on participant language development from as early as seven months old [45], while others investigate the period immediately after implantation or several years after implantation up to ages 10-15 [20]. Other researchers focus on exposure to early intervention rather than age or time relative to implantation [46], and thus, include a range of ages and language histories within their samples. These differences in participant age, language history, age of implantation, and time after implantation are sensitive to differences in the exposure to language and language training among participants.…”

Section: Spoken Language Development and Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings from recent research suggest that purposeful interactions and early language exposure and learning are important for d/hh students to develop spoken language proficiency. Purposeful interactions with educators and family members impact the overall language outcomes of d/hh children regardless of when they were identified as having a hearing loss [46][47][48]. However, children who are identified with hearing loss earlier and provided with early intervention services at a younger age demonstrate more robust vocabulary knowledge compared to infants and toddlers identified and enrolled in intervention services later [46][47][48][49].…”

Section: Spoken Language Development and Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Scott

Dostal

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the available research literature on language development and language interventions among deaf and hard of hearing (d/hh) children. This literature is divided into two broad categories: Research on natural languages (specifically American Sign Language and spoken English) and research on communication systems (specifically iterations of signed English and cued speech). These bodies of literature are summarized, with special attention paid to intervention research and research exploring the impacts of language skills on literacy development. Findings indicate that there is generally a stronger research base on natural languages as compared to communication systems, though more studies in both categories are necessary. Additionally, there are very few intervention studies and even fewer that aim to intervene upon language with the explicit goal of impacting literacy; therefore, there is little known about whether and how interventions that aim to support language development may have direct or indirect impacts on literacy within this population. Further research on this topic, as well as replication studies and research with larger sample sizes, is strongly recommended.

show abstract

“…More specifically, some studies in paediatric hearing habilitation have also found that family involvement is one of the strongest contributors to positive language outcomes in children with HL (Yanbay et al . , Moeller ). Maternal education, which may be related to quality and quantity of communication in the home environment, has also been found to be a significant predictor of language outcomes for children with HL at 3 years (Ching and Dillon ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent‐directed commentaries during children's hearing habilitation appointments: a practice in family‐centred care

Ekberg

Scarinci

Hickson

et al. 2018

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Language outcomes for children with cochlear implants enrolled in different communication programs

Cited by 55 publications

References 37 publications

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

Language Development and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Children

Parent‐directed commentaries during children's hearing habilitation appointments: a practice in family‐centred care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About